https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404269 Where goods were detained because the dealer had not disclosed a site office as an additional place of business under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework, the Court accepted that the omission attracted only the limited penal consequence recognised in the governing precedent. It held that the respondent could not sustain the broader tax demand and compounding approach in the impugned order on those facts. The compounding consequence was confined to the minimum amount fixed by the earlier ruling, and the larger demand was set aside to that extent. The writ petition was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404269 Where goods were detained because the dealer had not disclosed a site office as an additional place of business under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework, the Court accepted that the omission attracted only the limited penal consequence recognised in the governing precedent. It held that the respondent could not sustain the broader tax demand and compounding approach in the impugned order on those facts. The compounding consequence was confined to the minimum amount fixed by the earlier ruling, and the larger demand was set aside to that extent. The writ petition was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404269